As I have said repeatedly, I do not believe that any legislature should mandate teaching methods. They get swept along by fads, they are not experts, they have no business telling teachers how to teach.
Legislating “how to teach” makes as little sense as legislating how to perform open heart surgery.
Yet, some are hoping that Congress makes it a national law to teach the “science of reading.”
The Hill published the following article:
For decades, Congress has largely waited for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act before making sweeping changes to federal education policy. That restraint now appears to be fading.
Quietly, but consequentially, Congress is stepping into one of the most contentious debates in American education: how we teach children to read.
Since 1965, Congress has provided funding without controlling curriculum. But over time, that line has begun to blur. With the Every Student Succeeds Actmarking a notable shift, federal dollars are increasingly positioned to influence not just what schools prioritize but also how they teach — and now, how they teach children to read.
Until now, the Science of Reading has been advanced primarily by states and local school leaders willing to navigate the long-running “reading wars” on their own, with support from national organizations such as ExcelinEd and The Reading League. But that is beginning to change. In recent weeks, Congress has taken steps to assert federal influence over reading instruction, an unexpected move at a time when the Trump administration is simultaneously calling for a return of education authority to the states. The contradiction is hard to ignore: decentralize education, except when it comes to how children learn to read.
States, for their part, have not been standing still. Across the country, state education agencies have leveraged their authority to push districts toward Science of Reading aligned practices. Mississippi stands as the clearest example. Once near the bottom of national rankings, the state has drawn national attention for the “Mississippi Miracle” making dramatic gains in reading through literacy policy on the National Assessment of Educational Progress by anchoring its literacy strategy in the Science of Reading.
States like Mississippi may no longer be acting alone. Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.) is proposing that the federal government step in, not just as a funder, but as a signal-setter.
But this raises a fundamental question: Is this the beginning of the end of the reading wars?
The Science of Reading is not a new idea; it is the product of decades of research on how children actually learn to read. At its core, it emphasizes explicit, systematic phonics instruction over approaches that ask students to guess at words based on context or visual cues. Yet for years, this seemingly straightforward question of how to teach children to read has been anything but settled.
The so-called “reading wars” have played out in academic journals and conference rooms, with scholars such as Mark Siedenberg, Lucy Calkins and David Kilpatrick shaping the debate, while local school leaders have been left to translate dense research into real classroom practice.
Now, Congress is stepping in to settle the debate once and for all.
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce recently unanimously passed the Science of Reading Act. The bill filed by Houchin, would, for the first time, establish a federal definition of evidence-based literacy instruction grounded in the Science of Reading. Just as notably, it would draw a clear line in the sand by prohibiting the use of the three-cueing model in federally supported literacy programs.
And while the bill stops short of a federal mandate, its intent is unmistakable. By prioritizing funding for states and districts that align with research-based practices, Congress is using the power it knows best, money, to drive change. The message is clear: local control remains intact, but the expectation is alignment. In other words, districts can choose their path, but the federal government is making it increasingly clear which path it believes works.
Congress, for its part, is attempting to put its foot on base as it relates to how kids should learn to read. In February, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies convened a hearing on “The Science of Reading,” placing the issue squarely on the federal agenda for appropriators, the ones who direct federal spending.
For educators and leaders working on the front lines of literacy, this moment represents a notable and encouraging shift. The growing federal embrace of the Science of Reading signals long-awaited national alignment around what works in reading instruction. More importantly, it underscores the urgency of ensuring that every child, regardless of zip code, has access to high-quality, evidence-based literacy experiences.
Still, as with many proposals in Washington, unanimous passage in committee does not guarantee a full vote on the floor, and certainly does not guarantee full passage by both chambers. In fact, there has been no companion bill filed in the Senate. So, the bill must navigate both chambers of Congress. Yet early signals suggest something increasingly rare in Washington, D.C. these days: bipartisan support.
Should that support hold, the implications would be far-reaching. For the first time, federal literacy funding would be explicitly aligned with the Science of Reading, reshaping not only policy but also classroom practice across the nation.
Phelton C. Moss is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy at Virginia Commonwealth University and leads federal advocacy for the National School Boards Association. He is also a former teacher, school principal and congressional staffer.

No, no, no! Literacy educators are finally being heard about the cracks in the “Science” of Reading push that’s our latest education buzz. Not only does it often advocate for more and longer and out-of-context phonics instruction than is helpful, but it often doesn’t pay enough attention to other key reading skills, let alone the joy of reading. And then there’s this constant attacking of “the 3 cueing system,” which has been massively misunderstood and trashed by uninformed journalists looking for attention!
LikeLiked by 1 person
More congressional overreach.
LikeLike
I am amazed that so many people have learned how to read over the past 500 years or so and people are still arguing about how to teach kids and adults how to read. I learned how to read because that was the way talk about more things with my mother and father. So at 3 ½ I started with a dictionary and asking my mom for help. After a couple of months I made my own way with the dictionary, comics and magazines. Then we got an encyclopedia and off I went. I think the key was that I wanted to learn so I could talk to more people and learn new things.
LikeLike
Yes, this is a complete contradiction, but is far better than dismantling the Department of Education. Science of Reading has already swept the country, and the three-cueing is essentially dead. Requiring districts to show they’re aligned with SOR shouldn’t be that burdensome. (I hope!). Linda McMahon will need to get busy rehiring much of the staff that was let go to fulfill the verification requirement.
LikeLike
I was thinking this was going to add more literacy money to states like my own, but it looks like all this will do is make districts prove they’re teaching reading the “right” way. So, as is typical with this admin, it’s all about the stick.
LikeLike
“Federal law generally prohibits the U.S. government from controlling, directing, or supervising K-12 curriculum, instruction, or textbooks. State and local school boards hold primary authority over education, as codified in 20 USC 1232a.” However, the federal government may influence education with policies, grants and enforcement of civil rights laws. The SOR campaign is another attempt to standardize education. However, elementary students are the least standardized all any students in public education due to the different rates at which children develop and what opportunities children have had to develop academic and social skills. A one size fits all approach shows a lack of understanding of child development. Standardization mostly benefits Big Tech that wants to sell their products K-12, but there is zero evidence that it would benefit all elementary students. SOR would likely be a waste of time for students that are already reading in kindergarten.
I worked in a diverse elementary school that received a Blue Ribbon from the DOE because it offered an effective reading program that taught phonics, comprehension, writing and exposure to a wide variety of children’s literature simultaneously. Instruction was based on student assessment, and teachers used flexible grouping based to students’ needs which was both effective and motivating while it encouraged children to become life-long readers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RT,
I’m sorry I omitted the context of this article.
I’ve been dealing with a bad back and it gets in the way of everything.
My view: neither Congress nor state legislature should mandate how to teach, nor how to practice in any profession.
I updated the entry.
LikeLike
I hope you feel better soon.
LikeLike
So glad you provided this context. Reading the post as written in the email confused and concerned me about your position. Now it makes sense.
LikeLike
Diane, I’m so sorry about what you are going through and sincerely empathize with you, because my back is one of four things that recently went haywire on my body all at once. I know that you are already dealing with cancer, too, so I feel fortunate by comparison. I appreciate that you have continued to work on this blog anyways and I don’t know how you do it. Thank you for all that you do, but please take care. I hope you are feeling better soon because you mean sooo much to us!!!
LikeLike
Will persons who know nothing about pedagogy or what goes on inside the average public school classroom continue to make ill-informed decisions like this one? Oh! mais oui!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t you mean “mais NON?!”
(I would just say “Oy,” although, perhaps, this is so bad as to call for an “oy vey iss meir!”)
LikeLike
Since when are you advocating the Science of Reading? I have tons of articles from this site pointing out that the approach isn’t science based, and that what’s happening in Mississippi is a sham.
As a reading specialist for 21 years and a first grade teacher for 5, I can tell you that the valid pieces of this approach have always been used, despite the assertion that they haven’t, and that the rest of it is nonsense. Reading is a complex process that requires the application of a variety of skills and strategies besides just phonics. The briefest reflection should bear this out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you misunderstood. She is not advocating for the Science of Reading, nor for telling teachers how to teach at all!!!
LikeLike
Jenny,
I made an error. I allowed the piece to go without writing my introduction. I corrected it as soon as I could. I oppose all legislative mandates that tell teachers and other professionals how to do their jobs.
As I said earlier, I stumbled a few days ago and did something very bad to my back. I have had X-rays and scans, which show no fracture. But I am in great pain, relieved only by a heating pad.
More doctors are scheduled.
LikeLike
It certainly seems we are ready to ignore science when it comes to vaccines, climate change, and regulation of dangerous material. The so-called science of reading is ok. Go figure.
LikeLike
This is the article you should highlight. Shame on our legislatures if they vote for this. Just shows money is in charge.
https://open.substack.com/pub/teachingindangeroustimes/p/the-science-of-reading-act-of-2026?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=57n95s
LikeLike
An event you should also be promoting.
As a strong advocate for public education, I am extremely excited to attend this webinar. George Hruby is simply the best! Worth your time!International Literacy Educators Coalition George Hruby presents After the Flood: Reading Instruction Post SoR Thursday, April 9th, 2026, at 7:00 PM EST 6:00 PM CST, 4:00 PST We are limited to 500 participants.Register in advance for this free webinar:https://minnstate.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NLkk_2jRSoyKg_znVXw_kw Feeling deluged by SOR media, materials, and mandates? Science of Reading’s murky waters have crested, says Dr. Hruby. Our classrooms are ours to reclaim if we strategize now. Join Dr. Hruby in a conversation about why SOR may be on the outs, the backstories behind it, and how we can take back control of our teaching and students’ learning. Hruby BioDr. George G. Hruby has long been a voice for ethical reason, evidence, and science in literacy research and classroom practice, and thus is dismayed by Science of Reading’s propaganda and its edu-tech boondoggle.
LikeLike